You mean, like the DECREASE in crime around existing encampment in the cities? Or perhaps you think that homeless folks should be learning how to get jobs if we're going to provide some support -- like THIS: http://www.seattle.gov/parks/about-us/sp…

If people don't think candidates campaigned this cycle, I don't know what rock you were purposely hiding under... because there were more (local!) debates/forums, more news coverage, and more ratings and endorsements from community organizations than I have ever seen before.

And if you can't see the rather strong philosophical divides between a slate of lefty progressives and more moderate liberals, then I don't know what's the point of even having elections around here...

As some commenters are starting to get at, you actually have it backwards, Ansel... The HALA committee actually wants everyone to think that single-family zoning is racist, so that we can have the entire city opened up to developers to make lots of money building. And much of what they want o build may increase 'density' but it will be neither 'affordable' nor 'racially diverse.'

I'm reminded of when Establishment folks somehow managed to convince everyone in the Rainier Valley that it was racist to put the light rail in a tunnel underground because that was so rich, white people could ride the train to the airport and not have to look at the community and be encouraged to spend money there. Yeah... what we got for that was scraping away blocks and blocks of properties along MLK for developers to build upon and rapid gentrification in the neighborhood as the businesses that were long there disappear along with their customers.

I get that you disagree with the plan that was put forward, guys, but isn't describing it as "a plan put forward by the housing authority to raise rents by 500 percent over five years on more than a third of its tenants and provide them with career assistance" just a little disingenuous? Attack the plan all you want -- or propose alternatives, which would be more productive -- but how about we stop pretending that a bunch of evil, privileged white people proposed a plan just to get more money out of immigrants and people of color. You know that was not the reason put forward for the proposal, and the underlying problem still remains unaddressed: residents are remaining long-term in units that are supposed to be transitional or for people unable to work or stabilize themselves, leaving an ever-growing list of needy families with ZERO support.

I'm pro-marriage equality... but I've got a bone to pick with two of your statements:

1) While this argument may compare favorably to Loving v. Virginia for the purposes of some of the legal questions and potential outcomes at play, I don't think it works historically. When the Court was considering the question of interracial marriages, which had been outlawed in the U.S., it was pretty clear that such marriages were allowed in other places and had occurred throughout history.

2) People always like to make fun of Scalia (I know, it's easy), but he has one of the sharpest legal minds in this country, and he doesn't bring up questions just for the fun of it. It IS a good question to ask how a state could provide the same license to government officials and to religious leaders to perform marriages, and then argue that the government officials must serve all people who approach them for the service but that the religious leaders are allowed to discriminate.

I know many folks on the left always like to say these issues in our country are not a threat to religious folks, but they obviously MUST be from a legal and constitutional standpoint. The same just applied in the arguments around the law in Indiana. Why is it illegal for a business like a coffee shop or a book store to discriminate against LGBT customers but it is okay for such a business to do so if it happens to be owned and run by a religious organization, especially if it operates out of a religious institution's property. And don't just say "freedom of religion." How do we protect the religious beliefs of an organization, but not the members of said organization individually?

@5, Yeah... Let's hold Mike O'Brien accountable for trying to tell the makers of phone books that they shouldn't be allowed to drop pounds of unwanted paper onto people's private property. And let's blame him for costing the City money because a court decided that it somehow restricts the "free speech rights" of those corporate persons to physically leave remnants of that speech -- unwanted -- on my private property. What an entirely crazy idea to suggest a centralized place where people -- not customers, people -- could choose to tell those corporate persons that they do not wish to accept this "free speech" on their private property.

Heidi, I know you're new here and you need time to develop relationships and sources... but you need to be careful about just linking to archives of The Stranger on folks.

For starters, I'm not sure Bill gets brushed as NOT being a leftie, just because he's not a radical pro-density, pro-micros guy. He's clearly a recognized neighborhoods leader (for whatever that means to various people) as a leader in the Seattle Neighborhoods Coalition.

And am I correct that standing with him in the picture is Hyeok Kim, currently a Deputy Mayor? And I'm guessing not whispering into Mayor Murray's ear to be anti-aPodments or anti-density?

My only objection about this, Ansel, is that there is absolutely nothing that prevents YOU or any other journalist (or any other member of the public, for that matter) from taking pictures of folks protesting in public, and keeping that information in a file, and using it to write articles and blog posts -- or threaten someone with an article or blog post about their activity.

I get that the Press is generally here to protect me... and that SPD has violated our trust and belief that police officers are here to just enforce laws and keep the peace... BUT why should a police officer have any LESS rights than you or I do as citizens?

But give him a break on the discrimination claim. I mean, really?, $5,000 more is pennies in salary negotiations and ignores the fact that Brazel was TERRIBLE at her job. If it only cost a few thousand to get someone who knows what they're doing, then his staff negotiated that one pretty well.